Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I wonder how much we can trust it (Score 4, Insightful) 68

by DaHat (#48138331) Attached to: Tiny Wireless Device Offers Tor Anonymity

How do you determine that the checksum hasn't been modified in transit?

You could always audit the code yourself and compile it as well... but are you sure your compiler doesn't have any backdoors which might inject evil code just for something like this?

The bugger about paranoia... is you never know if you are sufficiently paranoid.

Comment: Re:but but but.... (Score -1, Troll) 172

by DaHat (#48048313) Attached to: New OS X Backdoor Malware Roping Macs Into Botnet

It's not just Steve.

A few years back I indulged my then girlfriend (now wife) by joining her at an Apple Store to have them try to sell her on a MacBook (vs a PC).

During the pitch she asked about if she would need any anti-virus software for the machine and was told simply "No, Macs don't get PC viruses"

(Yes the statement is technically true, it does not answer her question nor provide an accurate reflection of the need for anti-virus/malware software even on a Mac).

Despite my jaw dropping in utter disbelief to the answer I had just heard, she later commented how surprised I was that I could keep my mouth shut during such nonsense.

Comment: Re:Drones are cost effective? (Score 1) 208

by DaHat (#47996483) Attached to: Drones Reveal Widespread Tax Evasion In Argentina

*banging head on wall with everybody calling these things 'drones'*

Not just any aeriel photography... manned vs not.

This is simply a modern and more cost effective way of doing what has been done for ages.

It used to be you'd pay someone (for their time & fuel) to fly a manned helicopter or airplane over a given area and have to deal with possibly remote takeoff/landing locations as well as noise over your target... now you simply pay a guy with a van to park on a public street, launch a UAV and fly it over the target area.

Far easier & far cheaper.

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 499

by DaHat (#47877125) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.

Care to cite where I accused you of any such thing?

And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?

Depends on what else they know... either based on their own info or that which is said about you by others and the credibility of those statements.

Let me tell you this right now ... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.

Oh? And you've been on the receiving end of such Q's and know their mental processes? I haven't... so I can't say either way.

Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.

No where did I say answering no would get you flagged as a liar... I said that depending on the circumstances they it will raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy. Key word in that sentence *may*. Further investigation may be required. Maybe they've honestly never used Napster back in the day and instead has a rather lengthy iTunes purchase history?

A broader thing is you seem to thinks such a background check has the same level of evidence & burden of proof as a court does in a criminal trial. It does not.

I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.

Very true at the airport, when it comes to security clearances... it depends on who is doing the vetting and to what degree they are doing it (based on the degree of clearance being sought).

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 2) 499

by DaHat (#47876829) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.

Exactly, but let me add... these background checks aren't so much about checking as to if you've lead a boring and uncompromised life... but more about gauging your integrity with regards to honesty and ability to be blackmailed.

Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Have you ever illegally downloaded any music or movies from the internet?" (or something to that effect).

Most kids put "no"... not wanting to admit wrong doing... but by doing so end up raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy as it's rather unlikely given their age and background (those applying for these scholarships).

Ditto for Q's regarding fidelity. If you've been unfaithful and your spouse doesn't know, it can be used against you (ie "Give me a copy of the blueprints or... I'll tell your wife and the rest of your family that you cheated on them... with another man."

Comment: Re:I don't see how MS can comply (Score 1) 123

by DaHat (#47872963) Attached to: Microsoft Agrees To Contempt Order So It Can Appeal Email Privacy Case

You can't deliberate engage in activities to make it more expensive or complex for law enforcement to search subpoenaed records.

That's not quite accurate.

If the intent is to make it more difficult... then you best not have any evidence that it was done deliberately then you will be in for a world of pain.

If however it is part of your normal business processes and as a side effect it makes law enforcement's job harder... that is still perfectly legal.

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."